Rall

Andrew Sullivan has thrown down the gauntlet, challenging liberals to condemn Ted Rall's horrifying cartoon. He's right. If we're going to get all in a hissy about things like, oh, Trent Lott's nostalgia for Strom Thurmond's seg past, we ought to get in an equal hissy about crap like Rall's characterization of soldiers who are dying in Iraq as "idiots" and "saps."

Rall's wrong. He doesn't understand how patriotism works, or how a democratic nation goes to war. Wrong or right, we decided, as a nation, to go to war. We had a public debate. The Congress authorized it. The President ordered it. In short, through democratic processes the country called, and those who answered that call are patriots, not saps. Whether the call was correct or not doesn't matter. What matters is that when their country called, they answered, and they deserve our respect and appreciation for that reason.

If Ted Rall is so cynical that he thinks it's appropriate to ridicule people like that, that pretty much tells us all we need to know about Ted Rall.

Who is an idiot.

Comments

[David Patterson]

Everything we need to know about Rall's character can be concluded from this:

Rall never passes up an opportunity to brag about his "harrowing" (see his site) cartoon-trip to Afghanistan following the toppling of the Taliban (it would have been deliciously instructive to have observed him making a visit to Kabul under the Taliban). This trip is employed, by him and his editors, in all possible instances, to demonstrate his bravery and courage in the face of dangerous conditions -- to lay out his combat-experience bona fides.

An army ranger named Pat Tillman offered no interviews and wished no coverage of his most unusual and startling decision to go and make certain that the Taliban never returned and used Afghanistan as a client state again. Not as a drawer of cartoons, but as a member of the armed services. His bravery was quiet and sure, and he was embarrassed when others made a point of mentioning his sacrifices. He sought no special recompense.

In short, Rall's bravery is that of a child, who pushes behind those in the front, using them as cover, and then complains about their muscularity when facing true peril on the battleground.

Tillman was an adult -- living in a world far beyond that of "cartoons" and stick figures and breathtakingly moronic blog posts that boast of bizarre conspiracy theories -- creating a world where girls could go to elementary school alongside boys, and women would no longer be forced to endure pregnancies with no prenatal care.

Even photographs of the two men, placed aside one another, speak volumes about the seriousness with which they chose to live their lives. (A blogger's readership could be well-served by contrasting their portraits.)

The difference could not be more striking.

[Theodopoulos Pherecydes]

What flies up my nose is the left-liberal notion that volunteer military men and women are somehow victimized or stupid. On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me since most of the War on Terror/Bush criticism I read is so puerile, ignorant and shallow.

[Dan]

Rall is the Marmaduke of political cartooning.

[Alice]

For the middle third, who will determine the next election, choosing between the Tillmans and the Ralls/Wrights of the world will not be complicated. It will be a vote for Bush. If you are out there reading this and want Kerry to be elected, then the Ralls and the Wrights need to be called to the mat, by the left. Every time Rall disparages the soldier types that lefties sometimes struggle to understand, a vote for Bush is cast. That's just how I see it and I don't want pedantic trash like Ralls/Wright messing with something so important.

[Max]

The decision is not Rall vs. Tillman. Its Rall vs. Ann Coulter/Pat Robertson/Bill O'Reilly/Rush Limbaugh/Pat Buchanan/Sean Hannity

Who will scare moderate America more? You make the call.

[Alice]

Max, Yes indeed. That's a great question. I feel that the Republicans have currently got more mojo with the middle third ('mojo' being a highly technical term used in political science circles.) Conservatives are doing things. They have a focus. Democrats of late aren't offering much that is clear cut for that middle third. I know I'm being vague, but that's how I feel today. Democrats have a lot of 'anti' positions, but 'anti' positions are not, to my mind, what undecided people are looking for. 'Anti' positions don't make people feel protected from terrorists, an issue of great import to the middle. I think that the middle third see the world as a different place since 9-11. Many people who are already voting for Kerry see the world as the same old smelly place it always was, it's just that someone finally succeeded in slapping us around, which isn't easy to do. People who are already voting for Bush see this in clear us vs. them terms. There is a new war and we will win.
In terms of the right wing folks you mentioned, I think the middle third are open to the idea that our press is too liberal (although I know many liberals here really don't see it that way). Therefore I'm going to propose that those right-wingers are seen as a balance, and a balance that needs to be loud and obnoxious because they are up against a seriously powerful bunch of liberals running newsrooms. So, I think Rall is perhaps more destructive in that when he opines that Tillman is a stupid, racist, jock turned Rambo people want to distance themselves from him immediately - and from what they perceive to be his party.

[Rose]

Now here is the way I see it: there are people out there who want to kill me. I fit in a lot of peoples' crosshairs. I'm intelligent, and politically incorrect: that puts me in the left's crosshairs. I'm queer: that puts me in the right's crosshairs. I'm a prosperous middle-class American: that puts me in most of the world's crosshairs. And I'm not Islamic, which DEFINITELY puts me in a lot of crosshairs, the ones owned by the people who brought us 9/11, and later, 3/11 in Spain.

So I ask myself: who wants to kill me the most? And who will piss on my grave? And who is likely to try to do something to stop it all?

Well frankly, the Ted Rall Left is utterly useless in protecting me, and is most likely to piss on my grave. So why should I have anything to do with Rall, and the people who defend him?

The Left and the Right both want to take my money, spend it on things I don't approve of, and tell me how to think and behave. A pox on both their houses! This election, I'm voting for gridlock.

Rose

[Fast Freddie]

I hope that Ted Rall gets as much publicity as he can, as that will insure the reelection of President Bush. We are in a War To The Death with Islamic Fascism, and those that cannot see that need to get the Hell out of the way and let leaders and doers like the president, Secretary Rumsfeld, Prime Minister Blair and our armed forces get on with the job. I spent five years in military intelligence, and would reenlist today, but for health problems, and I honor Corporal Tillman's memory. BTW, every nation on earth uses some form of coercion on enemy combatants, and hazing, ridicule and shame pale in comparison to the torture of Saddam Hussein and his thugs. In the America I grew up in, Mr. Rall would be sipping jello through a straw, and wondering if his HMO pays for reconstructive surgery.

"Fast Freddie"
former Specialist/5, 96B20, US Army

[david rubien]

Whatever you feel about Ted Rall, and I agree he is over the top, you are wrong about how we went to war. You wrote this:

Wrong or right, we decided, as a nation, to go to war. We had a public debate. The Congress authorized it. The President ordered it. In short, through democratic processes the country called, and those who answered that call are patriots, not saps.

There was no public debate. Bush asked for authority to wage war, and congress granted it. There was little discussion. This is not how democracy is supposed to work, and it's one reason why the war is going so badly. The right-wing controlled congress, and a good chunk of the public, isn't interested in open discussion of the most serious issues confronting the US today. This is not healthy for the country.

[mike fisher]

in a democratic country soldiers do what politicians tell them to do. it is never right to blame the soldiers for the politicians decisions. the soldiers at abu ghraib were let down by the politicians & generals who failed to train them & protect them from the political & legal ignominy that they now find themselves in. the abu ghraib soldiers are the fallguys for bush and the people who hate bush! i don't like bush or conservatives at all but rall is totally in the wrong.